The five sites...

Berliner

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,063
I don't believe these 5 sites exist!
The mistake was quantifying it, giving it a fixed number when (I suppose) these five sites are maybe nothing more than "Ooh, we could build a stadium there" on a map. Yet another aspect from that absolute car crash of a meeting. And one that none of us should let drift into the fog of the past.
 

LondonRoader

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,198
But why would FK accept a reduction in the rental terms - if that’s what you meant? What would be in it for him? That’s a genuine question as I think Grenoble Road is the only realistic option for the club.
His last quote to the media in any sort of relation to OUFC was ‘they should just pay me my money’ or words to that effect if I recall correctly. Hardly the words of someone in the mood to be charitable.
I agree it is the only sensible approach on the available information out there.
What’s in it for him would depend on the new license/lease agreement, he would get a guaranteed payment over the set term we might get better access and use of facilities, who knows it’s anyones guess at the moment.
 

horseman

Active member
Joined
12 Dec 2017
Messages
732
The guys done nothing for our club and yet some would be happy to have us tied into another deal with him and yet again do sweet felicity adams for our club.
 

Manorlounger

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,592
I agree it is the only sensible approach on the available information out there.
What’s in it for him would depend on the new license/lease agreement, he would get a guaranteed payment over the set term we might get better access and use of facilities, who knows it’s anyones guess at the moment.
Think about this in terms of an investor, not a football fan. Grenoble road needs a shed load spent on bringing it up to standard. A fourth stand, closing in the corners, general repairs, modernisation, pitch replacement (with under-soil heating drainage etc) Increasing the capacity alone would cost a lot. What possible return for an investor is there in doing all that? Granted, the club could benefit from all the stadium revenue but that would only be the case if that same investor bought the stadium from FK who has made perfectly clear that he will not sell under any circumstances that do not bring him an abundant return. i.e. sell the stadium for what he could earn by tearing it down and building houses.

I'm sorry but Grenoble road is a dead parrot.
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
3,338
Think about this in terms of an investor, not a football fan. Grenoble road needs a shed load spent on bringing it up to standard. A fourth stand, closing in the corners, general repairs, modernisation, pitch replacement (with under-soil heating drainage etc) Increasing the capacity alone would cost a lot. What possible return for an investor is there in doing all that? Granted, the club could benefit from all the stadium revenue but that would only be the case if that same investor bought the stadium from FK who has made perfectly clear that he will not sell under any circumstances that do not bring him an abundant return. i.e. sell the stadium for what he could earn by tearing it down and building houses.

I'm sorry but Grenoble road is a dead parrot.
Grenoble Road could be an option IF we had a reasonable landlord who saw himself as 'the guardian of the club'
He appears to have constantly behaved unreasonably and appears to have no concern remotely for the football club.
 

LondonRoader

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,198
Think about this in terms of an investor, not a football fan. Grenoble road needs a shed load spent on bringing it up to standard. A fourth stand, closing in the corners, general repairs, modernisation, pitch replacement (with under-soil heating drainage etc) Increasing the capacity alone would cost a lot. What possible return for an investor is there in doing all that? Granted, the club could benefit from all the stadium revenue but that would only be the case if that same investor bought the stadium from FK who has made perfectly clear that he will not sell under any circumstances that do not bring him an abundant return. i.e. sell the stadium for what he could earn by tearing it down and building houses.

I'm sorry but Grenoble road is a dead parrot.
You are still only looking at the buy only scenario on the stadium.
The problem with football that the money men have hijacked the game, it is more about their gain than their customers and football fans are very emotive.
 

LondonRoader

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,198
Grenoble Road could be an option IF we had a reasonable landlord who saw himself as 'the guardian of the club'
He appears to have constantly behaved unreasonably and appears to have no concern remotely for the football club.
Nothing wrong with what you have said there, but unless you know the fine detail it might be a businessman looking after his own interests on the agreed licence, again a businessman making money through football.
 

Manorlounger

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,592
Nothing wrong with what you have said there, but unless you know the fine detail it might be a businessman looking after his own interests on the agreed licence, again a businessman making money through football.
You are still only looking at the buy only scenario on the stadium.
The problem with football that the money men have hijacked the game, it is more about their gain than their customers and football fans are very emotive.
I want to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the club should look to investing in Grenoble Road without buying and with an agreement in place that ensures FK continues to collect large sums of money for doing very little?

Saying that "the money men have hijacked the game" would include FK and surely mean that he would have to exit to allow the game to flourish?

Simply maintaining the status quo doesn't work, it's not financially sustainable. Successive owners (and prospective buyers) have all said that. There is no return in buying the stadium as a stand alone project unless you plan to redevelop as housing. If you could buy the whole Grenoble Road site and start over, perhaps but, even then it would be a big risk. FK is well aware of this hence, his intransigence on selling at a proper price.
 

LondonRoader

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,198
I want to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the club should look to investing in Grenoble Road without buying and with an agreement in place that ensures FK continues to collect large sums of money for doing very little?

Saying that "the money men have hijacked the game" would include FK and surely mean that he would have to exit to allow the game to flourish?

Simply maintaining the status quo doesn't work, it's not financially sustainable. Successive owners (and prospective buyers) have all said that. There is no return in buying the stadium as a stand alone project unless you plan to redevelop as housing. If you could buy the whole Grenoble Road site and start over, perhaps but, even then it would be a big risk. FK is well aware of this hence, his intransigence on selling at a proper price.
I'm not saying that at all, totality all your words.
I'm trying to say that there might be an agreement struck up that would suit both parties, FK keeps his land and agreed rent, the club have a new agreement that they are financially happy with and better agreed use of facilities, short term the club have control of the finances without having to fund 10's of millions of pounds of loans for a new site and ground.

At the moment it's a guessing game for all of us, we can all surmise what we think the outcome might be for our future.
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,408
I may be misunderstanding here LR, but how can 'FK keep his agreed rent' and 'the club have an agreement they are financially happy with'? Isn't the amount of the rent (and the failure of FK to maintain the stadium and pitch to anything other than a bare bones minimum) exactly the problem? The club is walking up a down escalator trying to pay that amount, Kassam won't (understandably) reduce it. I'm not sure what kind of deal could satisfy both of those points of view?
 

Sarge

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
16,885
I'm not saying that at all, totality all your words.
I'm trying to say that there might be an agreement struck up that would suit both parties, FK keeps his land and agreed rent, the club have a new agreement that they are financially happy with and better agreed use of facilities, short term the club have control of the finances without having to fund 10's of millions of pounds of loans for a new site and ground.

At the moment it's a guessing game for all of us, we can all surmise what we think the outcome might be for our future.
A renegotiated contract 're the breeze block, assuming improved terms for OUFC were a significant part of it , could be an option?....one of many options...... all speculative as still no answers from OUFC owner to the Q's asked by oxvox
 

LondonRoader

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,198
I may be misunderstanding here LR, but how can 'FK keep his agreed rent' and 'the club have an agreement they are financially happy with'? Isn't the amount of the rent (and the failure of FK to maintain the stadium and pitch to anything other than a bare bones minimum) exactly the problem? The club is walking up a down escalator trying to pay that amount, Kassam won't (understandably) reduce it. I'm not sure what kind of deal could satisfy both of those points of view?
No, I think that's were a lot of peoples angst is raised, the rent is cica £300k I don't know what the access details are for that though.
The other stuff is the service charge that is a different matter and the club took FK to arbitration and come unstuck, you mention the pitch, DE re-laid that to Mapp's specification with FK agreement, the club then have to take ownership of the ongoing costs as it was outside the original agreed licence, the club are tied into the licence agreement made all those years ago.
What I'm trying to say is the club can now agree a new different structured lease/licence that will suit both parties, access to facilities, 4th stand, better control of the service charge etc will give the club better short term financial control, are these big investors around just for that who knows, but I would be far happier for OUFC to be in that position managing what they have better for stable growth, than Tiger/whoever owning the club and stadium together, I think our future would be for more on the line with everything chucked in one barrel, where would the debt lay? we can't even get simple answers from the new owners at the moment.
This is probably all boll*x and Tiger will get access to countless millions and take us on a journey...
 

Banbury2018

Active member
Joined
1 Jan 2018
Messages
544
I want to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the club should look to investing in Grenoble Road without buying and with an agreement in place that ensures FK continues to collect large sums of money for doing very little?

Saying that "the money men have hijacked the game" would include FK and surely mean that he would have to exit to allow the game to flourish?

Simply maintaining the status quo doesn't work, it's not financially sustainable. Successive owners (and prospective buyers) have all said that. There is no return in buying the stadium as a stand alone project unless you plan to redevelop as housing. If you could buy the whole Grenoble Road site and start over, perhaps but, even then it would be a big risk. FK is well aware of this hence, his intransigence on selling at a proper price.
Well put although I get the impression Fk will only sell at a proper price plus millions. We would have to spend millions on top of that upgrading, fixing and building.
 

Manorlounger

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,592
I'm not saying that at all, totality all your words.
I'm trying to say that there might be an agreement struck up that would suit both parties, FK keeps his land and agreed rent, the club have a new agreement that they are financially happy with and better agreed use of facilities, short term the club have control of the finances without having to fund 10's of millions of pounds of loans for a new site and ground.

At the moment it's a guessing game for all of us, we can all surmise what we think the outcome might be for our future.
There will never be a mutually acceptable deal. I am at a loss to understand how anyone can even imagine such a set up. The land under the stadium is prime housing territory. It's value is increasing with every step towards building on the other side of Grenoble Road. The best we could hope for is that we can get out of the agreement with FK as and when we have somewhere else to go without huge financial penalties.
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,408
There will never be a mutually acceptable deal. I am at a loss to understand how anyone can even imagine such a set up. The land under the stadium is prime housing territory. It's value is increasing with every step towards building on the other side of Grenoble Road. The best we could hope for is that we can get out of the agreement with FK as and when we have somewhere else to go without huge financial penalties.
And that is where there is surely a deal to be done.
Of course you have to suppose that the club's chairman, board members or other investors have both the money and the will, but...
As much as we are hostage to Kassam's grip on the stadium, he is hostage to us having security of tenancy. There is loads of money to be made from the land at Grenoble Road, except there is a bloody football club on top of it :)
I am sure that Kassam is quite happy to knock the stadium down and make money and I don't think he would try to impose huge financial penalties on the club for buggering off and leaving him to it (why would he scupper his own deal?). One thing he won't do is to lock up that potential profit by selling the ground to the club, or by making it so comfortable as a landlord that we want to stay there for ever and a day! He wants us out.
So there is a scenario where he wants us to leave and (mutually) we want to go. The problem is of course, that we have to have somewhere to go TO. And unless one of the mythical five sites is actually not only feasible from a logistics, planning and time scale point of view then no 'board member' or 'investor' is going to waste his time - and even then there has to be the prospect of large amounts of money to be made for them to consider it seriously.
We await the release of the list of sites of course...
 

Manorlounger

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,592
So, it is four sites, all "Oxford" sites and not Bicester. Conversations with FK continue.

Anybody want to revisit the green belt report I have mentioned so many times?
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
3,338
No, I think that's were a lot of peoples angst is raised, the rent is cica £300k I don't know what the access details are for that though.
The other stuff is the service charge that is a different matter and the club took FK to arbitration and come unstuck, you mention the pitch, DE re-laid that to Mapp's specification with FK agreement, the club then have to take ownership of the ongoing costs as it was outside the original agreed licence, the club are tied into the licence agreement made all those years ago.
What I'm trying to say is the club can now agree a new different structured lease/licence that will suit both parties, access to facilities, 4th stand, better control of the service charge etc will give the club better short term financial control, are these big investors around just for that who knows, but I would be far happier for OUFC to be in that position managing what they have better for stable growth, than Tiger/whoever owning the club and stadium together, I think our future would be for more on the line with everything chucked in one barrel, where would the debt lay? we can't even get simple answers from the new owners at the moment.
This is probably all boll*x and Tiger will get access to countless millions and take us on a journey...
The one thing that I disagree with you on is that Kassam has normally been unreasonable.
So yes £300k plus the club running the ground (reducing the service charge), being allowed to use the restaurant on match days without incurring charges that are in reasonable if the club want to make money on it) looking after its own pitch, maybe having its own bar etc could be a reasonably sensible move.
But there is Kassam....
 

LondonRoader

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,198
The one thing that I disagree with you on is that Kassam has normally been unreasonable.
So yes £300k plus the club running the ground (reducing the service charge), being allowed to use the restaurant on match days without incurring charges that are in reasonable if the club want to make money on it) looking after its own pitch, maybe having its own bar etc could be a reasonably sensible move.
But there is Kassam....
Moving forward, hopefully the FK situation can be managed better by everyone.
 
Top Bottom